APPAIAH ANNAPPA DESAI Vs. TAVANAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an application made by the husband of the 1st respondent for resumption of land under S.14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') . The petitioner, who is a tenant, opposed the said application on several grounds. One of the grounds Was that he is a 'protected tenant' of the lands in question and if resumption is allowed, he will not be left with one standard acre of land (vide 4 and 5 of the objections). That contention of the petitioner was not gone into either by the Land Tribunal or by the appellate authority. The Land Tribunal allowed resumption of RS.60/2 to an extent of 22 guntas leaving 27 guntas in RS.60/3 and 61/3. The extent allowed to remain with the tenant is less than one standard acre.

(2.) THE contention of Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 of the Act applies to the instant case and since the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority have not considered the said question, the orders of the authority below should be set aside and the matter should be remanded. After the Bench of this Court in Basayya Shivagya Pujar v. Narayan Shyastri Rama Shyastri, 1971 2 MysLJ 233 considered the effect of S.16(10B) of the Act and laid down the law, the matter was considered by Malimath, J. in Dilip Vishwanath Deshpande v. Parasharam Venkoba Pawar, 1971 2 MysLJ 340 wherein it has been held that the effect of S.16(10B) is that the provisions of clauses (1) to (10) of S.16 which relate to the extent of land that a landlord can resume do not cover resumption of the land in Bombay area and that the extent of land which a landlord can resume in the Bombay area is governed by Ss.31A. 31B and 31C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It was not disputed before us by Sri Ramachandra that sub-sec. (1) of S.16 is not applicable to cases of resumption arising in the Bombay area. If the main sub-section is not applicable, the proviso to the said sub-section cannot apply to the Bombay area. It is clear that the proviso relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot apply to the case of the petitioner. THErefore, his contention that the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration is clearly untenable. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.